Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001267]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Generally, I agree. But in this case, I find it hard to stop that play.
The touch was maybe just a brush of the finger tips on the shirt...not a grab/pull on the jersey. It wasn't the type of play where they were just trying to stop the clock.

I don't think it was trying to stop the clock, either. I do think she was trying to "neutralize an obvious advantageous position" part of the rule.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I don't think it was trying to stop the clock, either. I do think she was trying to "neutralize an obvious advantageous position" part of the rule.

Trying to and actually doing is where I see the difference....

Rule 4-19-3a

Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

That contact had no effect at all.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Trying to and actually doing is where I see the difference....

Rule 4-19-3a


That contact had no effect at all.

On my phone I didn't think she touched her. On the big screen she reaches out and puts left hand on back and then right one on the hip. She's trying to get a foul call but not realizing she needs to make it look better. In girls 1Abasketball I think you have to call it and all your left with is intentional.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BigCat

On my phone I didn't think she touched her. On the big screen she reaches out and puts left hand on back and then right one on the hip. She's trying to get a foul call but not realizing she needs to make it look better. In girls 1Abasketball I think you have to call it and all your left with is intentional.

Why would I call this in a girls game and leave it alone elsewhere?

I've heard some girls games with INSANE numbers of fouls considering the quality of teams and the only reason I can think of is that the officials simply don't get advantage/disadvantage.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rich

Why would I call this in a girls game and leave it alone elsewhere?
I THINKII
I I I

MMMAT

I've heard some girls games with INSANE numbers of fouls considering the quality of teams and the only reason I can think of is that the officials simply don't get advantage/disadvantage.

You don't know what effect the left and then the right hand had on offense. She does go on to brick the layup. The defender is trying to foul, left hand then right hand. Again, no legitimate reason for hands to be there. There placed there...on purpose...on a ballhandler..In a 4A boys game I'd expect him to play through it better. 1A girls obviously less strong etc. and as someone else said, she's trying to foul , not once but twice. If not called the third one will be clear. I'd have to see the contact in a higher level boys game. If it was like this contact I'd pass on it. Different skill level.

[Adam]

I didn't see anything that I would have wanted to call, even in a middle school girls game. She tried to foul her, but failed (IMO). Would I have actually blown my whistle in that situation if I had been on alert for a foul? Maybe, but I wouldn't have felt good about it.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Trying to and actually doing is where I see the difference....

Rule 4-19-3a


That contact had no effect at all.

Neither does tugging on a jersey but the intent is clear. Again, give them what they want so that they don't have to foul someone harder. That is frustrating to both players.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Neither does tugging on a jersey but the intent is clear. Again, give them what they want so that they don't have to foul someone harder. That is frustrating to both players.

The reason she's not doing more is cause she can't reach her.

I'd like to think I'd pass on this, but I'm watching video in my jammy pants and not on the floor at that spot.

[Pantherdreams]

The INT is a tough call here but by rule . . .

She is clearly trying to foul her and get the whistle but is not making a play on the ball so IF you call a foul here you have to INT.

If you have a patient whistle and try to see how it develops you might be able to wait until the act of shooting for a common foul anyway, but she actually stops doing it before the act of shooting starts. You also run the risk of her needing to foul harder to get the call.

I think the official on the floor gave her as much rope as he felt like he could but when she let her go to take the layup whether he thought she'd had jersey or just felt like he had to have something because the whole gym saw her trying to foul his hands were tied.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

The INT is a tough call here but by rule . . .

She is clearly trying to foul her and get the whistle but is not making a play on the ball so IF you call a foul here you have to INT.

If you have a patient whistle and try to see how it develops you might be able to wait until the act of shooting for a common foul anyway, but she actually stops doing it before the act of shooting starts. You also run the risk of her needing to foul harder to get the call.

I think the official on the floor gave her as much rope as he felt like he could but when she let her go to take the layup whether he thought she'd had jersey or just felt like he had to have something because the whole gym saw her trying to foul his hands were tied.

What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?

ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

(a) didn't happen...that requires actual impact
(b) didn't happen
(c) didn't happen...it wasn't a foul designed to stop the clock
(d) didn't happen
(e) not applicable

Very simply, reaching out and trying to foul someone isn't enough to be intentional. (a) is the closest but it actually requires that the contact has the impact of neutralizing the opponent's advantage.

Pulling on someone's jersey to slow them down would qualify...but she didn't do that.

I still maintain that this is simply not a foul, much less an intentional foul. If, instead, she actually got a grasp of the jersey and pulled it...sure, it would be an intentional foul. But we call what happens.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?



(a) didn't happen...that requires actual impact
(b) didn't happen
(c) didn't happen...it wasn't a foul designed to stop the clock
(d) didn't happen
(e) not applicable

Very simply, reaching out and trying to foul someone isn't enough to be intentional. (a) is the closest but it actually requires that the contact has the impact of neutralizing the opponents advantage.

Pulling on someone's jersey to slow them down would qualify...but she didn't do that.

I still maintain that this is simply not a foul, much less an intentional foul. If, instead, she actually got a grasp of the jersey and pulled it...sure, it would be an intentional foul. But we call what happens.

Examples a-e are irrelevant because of "Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:"

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001318]What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?


The premeditated portion of the rule. Intent. Doesn't have to based on severity part of the rule. Intent. Similar to tugging on a jersey. (which isn't even one of the examples). When this rule first came out, they used a play in the casebook very similar to this play.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?



(a) didn't happen...that requires actual impact
(b) didn't happen
(c) didn't happen...it wasn't a foul designed to stop the clock
(d) didn't happen
(e) not applicable

Very simply, reaching out and trying to foul someone isn't enough to be intentional. (a) is the closest but it actually requires that the contact has the impact of neutralizing the opponent's advantage.

Pulling on someone's jersey to slow them down would qualify...but she didn't do that.

I still maintain that this is simply not a foul, much less an intentional foul. If, instead, she actually got a grasp of the jersey and pulled it...sure, it would be an intentional foul. But we call what happens.

Full disclosure we don't have intentionals in FIBA anymore. Everything is now an unsportsmanlike and the standards are obviously articulated differently. There are also automatics here for some actions and her act if deemed a foul would be one.

That being said based on the article you posted I would say if you were going to apply the standard a) and c) would be the ones you would use.

a) she is clearly not making a play on the ball and what the she took away would be up to the judgement of the official relative to the ability/situation of player. I'm ok with that judgement if that is what he makes.

c) she is very clearly trying to commit the foul to stop the break away she actually stops doing it once the shooting motion starts because she knows its too late now. Which means she committing the foul to stop the play and clock. Without making a play on the ball we are into the same area you get into at the end of the game. Where if the play is not a basketball play on the ball you come out with an INT/unsportsmanlike too because you have no justification not to call it that way.

Once again I feel like once you call this foul because of placement of the foul both on the player and court, you have to go intentional. I'm not saying you have to have a foul here but if you do its not common because its not a common/incidental play. There is intent and clearly done in a non basketball play to neutralize play and get the game stopped.

I would bet dollars to donughts that official without the benefit of our angles and replay thought one of the those contacts involved a jersey grab . . . but that really is just speculation.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

The INT is a tough call here but by rule . . .

She is clearly trying to foul her and get the whistle but is not making a play on the ball so IF you call a foul here you have to INT.

If you have a patient whistle and try to see how it develops you might be able to wait until the act of shooting for a common foul anyway, but she actually stops doing it before the act of shooting starts. You also run the risk of her needing to foul harder to get the call.

I think the official on the floor gave her as much rope as he felt like he could but when she let her go to take the layup whether he thought she'd had jersey or just felt like he had to have something because the whole gym saw her trying to foul his hands were tied.

How is she going to foul harder? She reaches in this manner cause the player with the ball is getting away from her?

Maybe the other player would foul her, sure, but that's not really my problem here.

(BTW, I think those that intentionally call girls games in a different manner than boys games are doing the girls a disservice.)